Thoughts, Words, Deeds

More than two years after the start of the conflict in Ukraine and after six months of war in Gaza, the rhetoric of many Western leaders has gradually acquired different connotations. Progressive changes in communication, betraying a certain amount of anxiety.

Official statements are increasingly accompanied by unofficial considerations, statements released in exchange for anonymity, free belated thoughts of continued involvement in two ongoing military clashes. Which is more than ever tied, at least on the American agenda, to the fact that Congress continues to slow down the mega aid package conceived by Biden for Israel and Ukraine as well as to the ever closer presidential election.

The certainties that up to this moment have been offered to shape public opinion are now less durable. Victory by Kiev, certain as recently as six months ago, is becoming less and less likely. The doubts of the US military general staff, which a year ago classified Zelensky’s task of reclaiming Donbass and Crimea as “difficult,” a year later are consolidating with the skepticism of Americans and Europeans who polls indicate are less and less inclined to continue the conflict.

Biden and his vice Kamala Harris have already changed White House rhetoric in recent months, moving from guaranteeing support for Ukraine “for as long as necessary” to the phrasing “for as long as possible.” A significant difference, discreetly accounting for the trend on the field: Kiev’s counteroffensive is morphing into Moscow’s counteroffensive. Today, as Russian forces advance and Ukrainian forces struggle to hold their ground, Donald Trump’s intentions dictate the line. In fact, the former president, who wants to return to the White House in seven months, is not speaking out directly, but is letting his inner circle speak out without denying it. Which sees the easiest solution in partitioning Ukraine, with the four regions, Donbass and Crimea finally recognized as Russian. This is what the former tycoon is credited with telling the Ukrainian president once he is re-elected. A decision that Zelensky is unlikely to be able to ignore, however difficult it may be. Already falling in popularity, in tension with military commanders, fighting an unpopular mobilization designed to stop the bleeding of troops at the front, the former actor must also rescind a reckless decree that legally forbids him from negotiating with Putin.

Kiev knows it can count on European support, but realizes that without American financial and military backing, this assistance, despite assurances, will gradually weaken. For the governments of the Baltic republics, as well as Britain and Poland, in the front row fueling the war in a viscerally anti-Russian way, there are many others who show concern and weariness of the clash that, other than destroying a couple generations of people, will at best leave things as they are. Unless projecting the conflict into a nuclear dimension and therefore even more catastrophic if Western countries add their own troops to the front, along with Ukrainian troops, in addition to financial aid and increasingly lethal weaponry.

A devastating prospect that the Secretary General of NATO himself seems resigned not to believe. After Macron’s reckless reminiscences of boots on the ground and the flurry of no’s he provoked in other chancelleries, starting with the German one, the phase we are destined to experience in the coming months is declared a phase of waiting for the result of the American elections and, to a lesser extent, the European elections in June. It must also be borne in mind that the leadership of the European Commission, which von der Leyen now interprets in bellicose terms, is unlikely to be as assertive if resistance to war in key countries, such as Germany and France, rewards opposition parties, as opinion polls now suggest.

Probably also for this reason, along with the advance of Russian troops on the battlefield, Stoltenberg in turn adjusted his rhetoric, introducing for the first time the concept of Kiev’s territorial renunciation. It is a turning point, coming days after the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Atlantic Alliance, which Stoltenberg himself tried to dilute by framing it in terms of a “true peace” that could be achieved when “Ukraine prevails.” A dialectical ploy to avoid ousting Zelensky completely in the days when the president is warning his allies, led by the USA and NATO, that without new weapons Ukraine will lose the war.

But Washington must now focus elsewhere. More than Zelensky, it is Netanyahu who worries Biden and his complicated re-election bid. After hugs, invitations, advice, warnings, and criticism, Biden is now waving threats at his historic ally to prevent him from continuing his revenge against Hamas, which has quickly turned into a continuous slaughter of civilians in Gaza. Netanyahu, a compulsive leader who in twenty years, with a lot of military operations, has paradoxically increased the sense of insecurity of Israelis, continues undaunted. He is withdrawing troops from southern Gaza, signaling that he wants to move the war to Rafah, despite calls from US military leaders not to risk the adventure with devastating humanitarian consequences.

Israel’s prime minister continues his strategy not only because it is the only one that allows him to remain in government, but also because he believes Biden’s threats are weak. In fact, the American president did not comply with the rule providing for suspension of military supplies and did not avoid evading congressional oversight of military aid packages worth less than $25 million each. Formatting packages under this measure, Biden in recent months has continued to authorize arms shipments to Israel, including 900-kilogram bombs dropped on Gaza, following a practice that since 2016 has provided three billion eight hundred million dollars per year to the strategic ally in the Middle East for missiles, helicopters, and fighter jets.

Despite concerns that the liberal segment of his electorate is protesting for acquiescing to Netanyahu and despite the risk of losing in some key states precisely because of support for Israel, Biden is hesitant to follow through on his threat to cut supplies. This would allow him to reach consensus in some districts, but would result in a loss of support from the vast pro-Israel world of the United States. A cost/benefit assessment that the president intends to take to the limit in order to see which decision will ultimately prove to be the least counterproductive to his campaign. Gaza, following this logic, can wait.